morning fog will be along with us as e we start tomorrow morning. temperatures just as chilly but notice as the afternoon highs warm so do the overnight lows and eventually becoming a little bit more comfortable for the cooler spots through the morning hours and into the afternoons. we're looking at 5 to 10 degrees above normal for this time of year. >> above normal. >> pretty incredible. a day to stay outside and enjoy it. that is our report for this morning. >> be sure to join ktvu for our newscast at 5 and always here for you at ktvu.com, and have a wonderful sunday everyone and enjoy that late evening sunset.

mary gonzales had a cold, she also has asthma. so she sees her allergist who has a receptionist susan, who sees that she's due for a mammogram. mary has one that day. that's when she finds out she has a tumor. she has a successful surgery and because her health provider has an amazing connected system, she has her life. i don't know what you have but i have kaiser permanente. kaiser permanente. thrive

. >> chris: i'm chris wallace. gearing up for the battle of the budget. with new talk of a grand bargain. ♪ >> chris: as president obama switches from the blame game to breaking bread with the republicans, both sides prepare plans for the nation's economic future. house budget committee chair paul ryan will give us an exclusive preview of his new budget. plus, tell us what he discussed with the president, over lunch

this week. congressman paul ryan. only on fox news sunday. then, jeb bush returns to the spotlight, to talk about immigration reform, and his political future. will his new plan help or hurt process protects fspects for a immigration and how serious is he about 2016? we'll sit down with jeb bush. plus congress takes on the white house over national security. we'll ask our sunday panel about the controversy over drones and the new york trial of an accused al qaeda terrorist, all, right now, on fox news sunday. ♪ >> chris: hello again from fox news in washington. president obama calls him a thought leader of the republican party and this week house budget committee chair paul ryan will put out a plan to balance the federal budget in ten years, on the heels of a private lunch

with the president on thursday, congressman ryan joins us to discuss all of it and, congressman, welcome back. >> thanks, for having me, good morning, chris. >> chris: the plan that you are going to release tuesday would balance the budget in ten years, not 25 years, like your last one, how do you do that? do you have to make even tougher, deeper spending cuts? >> actually, not really. we always got close to balancing the budget, but, not quite there. we don't have to do much, simply because the new cbo baseline makes it easier because the new baseline makes it easier to balance and we extend the bca, the budget control act, casts out another two years and ask all federal employees, actually have their pension contributions like those in the private sector, at the end of the budget window, and we don't have to do huge things to get the balance because of the new baseline, but, the point is we think we owe the american people a balanced budget, and we want to respect hard working taxpayers, and, we think we have a

responsible plan, to balance the budget, which the reason we do a balanced budget is not to make the numbers, simply, add up, it leads to a healthy, growing economy that creates jobs, a means to an end and the means is to get to a good, growing economy to create jobs and opportunity, and i'm glad the senate is doing a budget, this first time in 40 years, our concern is they may never propose to balance the budget and we think it is irresponsible. >> chris: let's look, congressman, at a couple of the reasons you don't have to make big changes in the new budget, to balance it in ten years. you include the $600 billion you mentioned in tax increases, that came from raising rates in the fiscal cliff debate and also include $716 billion in medicare cuts through obamacare that you opposed in the last campaign. question, is it fair to say at least those parts of the president's policies make it easier to balance the budget? >> it is fair to say that. what we also say is, end the raid of medicare from obamacare,

you have to remember, all of that money, taken from medicare, was to pay for obamacare, we say we get rid of obamacare and end the raid and apply those savings to medicare to make it more solvent and extend the solvency of the medicare trust fund and we don't want to refight the fiscal cliff. it is current law and will not change and we also propose pro growth tax reform which we think with the currents revenue line we can have a very pro-growth tax reform system to bring all rates down, good for economic growth and good for job creation and hard working taxpayers, by having less loopholes in the tax code, no more crony politics and stop picking winners and losers and pro-growth tax reforms, those things are achievable and we achieve it in the budget and reflect those realities you mentioned. >> chris: in your last budget you cut spending $5 trillion over ten years. how much do you cut spending in this new budget. >> basically the same. about $5 trillion. instead of growing spending at 4.9% a year, which is the

average under the current path we're on, we grow spending at 3.4%, each year, over the next decade and it gets us on a path to billions and results in a $5 trillion spending cut. >> chris: when you talk about cuts, you talk about cuts in the rate of growth, not actual, absolute cuts? >> exactly. and, instead of spending $46 trillion over the next ten years we'll spend 41 and grow spending 3.4% a year instead of 4.9% a year, which takes us from balancing the budget and produces a debt crisis. that is the problem, the president has us on a path toward a debt crisis that hurts everybody and brings us to a recession and gives us a european kind of experience which we want to avoid. we want people going back to work and higher wages and more jobs and a growing economy and get that by balancing the budget. >> chris: there are two sides to the argument, the president would say all of these spending cuts, the sequester and the cuts that you are going to propose in the short-term could actually hurt this kind of slightly

improving recovery and throw is back into a recession. let me ask you about a couple of specific cuts you made last year and tell me if they are not in the new budget -- i assume they are. you cut medicaid $770 billion, over the next ten years. you cut $134 billion from food stamps. you cut $166 billion from education, training and social services. democrats say that that makes you the party of austerity. that, one, it will hurt people who depend on these programs, and, two, they say that rather than spur growth it will hurt growth. >> well, we have 49 different job training programs spread across 9 different government agencies, lots of bureaucracies and they don't work and we propose to consolidate the programs and go back to the states and get people into jobs and training so they can get back to work and get rid of the bureaucracy in washington and send the money back to the states, so people can actually get the skills they need to get the jobs they want. on food stamps, we basically

say, you have to qualify for the food stamp programs to get the benefits. with our reforms, food stamps would have grown by 260% over the last ten years, and 270%, like they did grow and, with respect to medicaid we think the obamacare expansion of medicare is reckless. we are pushing people, 20 million people into a program that is failing. more and more doctors and hospitals don't even take the program. and we want to reform medicaid by giving states the ability to customize the program, to meet the unique needs of their medicaid population. >> chris: but, congressman, do you really say -- >> make the programs better. >> chris: can you honestly say by turning medicaid into a block grant and giving it to the states you can cut $770 billion out of that program, over the next ten years? that is going to have no impact on legitimate recipients? >> these are increases that have not come yet. so, by repealing obamacare, and the medicaid expansions which have not occurred yet, we are basically preventing an explosion of a program that is

already failing. so, we're saying don't grow this program, through obamacare, because it doesn't work. prevent that growth from going, because it will not work, it will hurt people who are trying to help and hurt hospitals and states. and, give the states the tools they are asking for, in the end, is a perfect example. they have a fantastic medicaid program created in indiana, and is popular and successful and works well but obamacare prevents it from going forward, we want to give them the ability to make these things work for the population and, by not pushing people into the failing program we save lots of dollars. >> chris: i must pick up on this. i didn't understand it. as part of your budget you assume the repeal of obamacare? >> yes. >> chris: that is not going to happen. >> well, we believe it should. that is the point and -- this is what budgeting is all about, chris. about making tough choices, to fix our country's problems. we believe that obamacare is a

program that will not work. we believe obamacare will actually lead to hospitals and doctors and health care providers turning people away. it is a program that basically puts medicare under the control of 15 people on a board, that will determine what kind of benefits people get. that is a rationing board. however you slice it. we don't think health care will be improved in this country, we think it is going to look ugly over the next couple of years and that is why we are going to propose replacing obamacare with patient-centered health care and a better system for everybody, the poor and people in the states and medicare so we can actually have affordable health insurance for everybody including people with preexisting conditions, without costly government takeovers which obamacare represents and yes, our budget does promote repealing obamacare and replacing it with a better system. >> chris: i want to pick up on the medicare. what you say is starting with people who are now 54, and you reportedly wanted to raise it to

56, but, there was political push back, starting with people who are now 54, you would start to give them, when they become of age, a government subsidy. a voucher, whatever you want to call it, premium support to help them pay for their health care costs. now, you know, i don't have to tell you, this is a big issue in the campaign, between romney-ryan versus obama-biden and they one and they think that is one of the reasons they won, and if you put it into effect, economists say, seniors will have to pay more a share of their health care costs. >> first of all, it's not a voucher, it is different. a voucher, you go to your mailbox and get a check and buy something, we are saying let's convert medicare into a system that who, like i have as a congressman, a federal employee, you have guaranteed coverage options including medicare for your future needs and medicare

subs diidizes your plan, and mo for poor and the sick and less for wealthy seniors and harnessing the power of choice an competition, where the senior gets to choose her benefits, comprehensively is the best way to save medicare for future generations an guarantees it does not change for people in or near retirement and also guarantees for those of us under the age of 55 we have to have a medicare program when we retire. the problem is, medicare is going broke. the other problem is, obamacare does such damage to medicare, that it is going to damage the program for current seniors, we don't want that to happen. that is why we are proposing these reforms, which save and strengthen the medicare program, not just for my mom but and i'de against your premise that we lost the issue in the campaign, we won the senior vote. i did dozens of medicare town hall meetings in states like florida explaining how these are the best reforms to save the shrinking medicare program and we are confidently this is the way to go. it has bipartisan support and it is an idea that came from democrats in the first place and

we think it is really the best way to go, because, the alternative here, of having a choice system where you choose the plan that meets your need is 15 bureaucrats making the decisions in washington which are the new obamacare board which we repeal in the budget. >> chris: this brings us to the lunch that you had on thursday with president obama, at the white house and i want to explore the question as to whether there is a basis for a compromise here, because i have to say, i don't hear it so far. let me start this way: from your view, after having lunch with the president, do you think that his so-called charm offensive is sincere? that he is really looking for compromises on issues that still seem like there is a big divide or do you think it is more political theatre to at least appear to be reaching out? >> i think the answer to that question will be determined based on how he conducts himself in the coming weeks and months. this is the first time i ever had a conversation with the president lasting more than, say, two minutes or televised exchanges and i never really had a conversation with him, on

these issues before. i am excited that we had the conversation. we had a very -- we come from different perspectives, i ran against him in the last election and we exchanged very different frank, candid views with one another that were very different but at least we had the conversation and i think the answer to your question will be determined by how he conducts himself in the coming weeks and months, will he resume the campaign mode, will he resume attacking republicans and impugning our motives, and resume what is long believed to be a plan to win the 2014 elections or will he sincerely change and try and find common ground, work with republicans to get something done? that what is we hope happens. >> chris: let me -- >> a down payment on the debt crisis. >> chris: let me pick up on that. you talk about coming from different perspectives, one of the last times you and the president were together was two years ago. almost exactly two years ago, when your last -- your budget that year had come out and with you in the audience the president took apart the proposed spending cuts you wanted to make. take a look:

>> president barack obama: these are the kinds of cuts that tell us we can't afford the america that i believe in, and i think you believe in. i believe it paints a vision of our future that is deeply pessimistic. >> chris: the vision he's talking about is the ryan budget, did that come up at the lunch, congressman? >> it didn't, but that is basically what i was saying, if you impugn people's motives, if you say these draconian cuts, which by the way we are increasing spending an average of 3.4% a year, it does no good to get to common ground and makes it impossible for parties to come together and bridge the gaps, that kind of rhetoric resumes, then we will know it was for show and want sincere. i hope it is sincere, we had a good, frank exchange and the truth will be in the come weeks as to whether or not it is a real sincere outreach to find common ground. look, chris, there are things we can do that don't offend either

party's philosophies, that doesn't require someone to surrender their principles to make a good down payment on getting the debt and deficit under control. that is -- what i'd like to achieve. >> chris: let me pick up on that with you, congressman. there are basic disagreements that remain. the president would like to raise $600 billion at least in added revenue by clearing out so many of the deductions and loopholes for upper income people, and you want not nips and cuts but structural reform to entitlements, and -- first are you willing to give up one to get the other and do you think he is willing to. >> we think we should balance the budget -- >> you know, that -- >> we have a different -- we do have a difference of opinion on that and the other problem is this: by continuing to raise taxes, to fuel more spending you will never get tax reform which is critical for economic growth and job creation. and, so, yes, we have an impasse, right now which is the

president wants to continue raising taxes, not for deficit reduction but to fuel more spending, and, we see tax reform as incredibly important goal, and policy, to getting pro-growth economics, to getting businesses growing again and hiring people. tax reform to us is an economic growth generating exercise and tax reform to the president, so far, seems to be a spending growth exercise, revenue generating exercise, to spend money -- there is an impasse there, so, bottom line -- >> chris: let me ask you -- >> if we did -- >> let me ask you this: bottom line, what do you think they're chanc are the chances of a big deal, this year to try to get the deficit under control? >> i think it is going to determine -- be determined by the temperament and the posture that the president and all of us take over the next few weeks. we have spending problems and i like to think we can find common ground on where and how to cut spending and get entitlement reforms, will the president take the program and block medicaid, my guess is he won't and that is

the best way to make things work better, but are there things that get you closer to balancing the budget and delays the debt crisis from hitting the country? yes, i think there are and i do believe there is a consensus for tax reform. there are a lot of moderate democrats especially in the senate in favor of lowering tax rates by closing loopholes and that is what we are proposing. top stetaking winners and losern washington and you don't lose revenue to the from government and make it easier for -- and we think there is a bipartisan consensus for that and hope -- >> congressman, i don't mean to interrupt but i have a couple of political questions to ask in very little time. did you come away from your experiences, as the vice presidential candidate, in 2012, thinking that the prospect of running for president for two years would be appalling or exciting? >> that's a good question. actually, i enjoyed the experience. it made it more realistic in my

mind, that something that i -- something i much better understand and jen and i talked about it the other day and we look back at it as a positive experience and enjoyed it and got to meet hundreds of thousands of people who care so much about their country and learned a lot. just about the great, greatness of this country, how hard working people want to get ahead and make a difference, so actually i found it a pleasant exercise to be candid with you. >> chris: and finally, what is more attractive as you sit here today, running or president or staying in the house, doing the important work you do there, and maybe someday becoming speaker? >> yes, so, i have no plans to be in house elected leadership. if i wanted that, i would have run for the jobs years ago. i've always believed the better place for me is in policy leadership, like being a chairman a president, i honestly think we have a problem, right now, a budget mess and a debt crisis coming and i'm the chairman of the budget committee. and i represent the first -- i should focus on that and that is the most important thing and i shouldn't cloud my judgment

today, thinking about some political thing four years from now. i should not be clouding my judgment by thinking, how did this position, to run for president, i need to do what is right and how can i help wisconsin and close the budget gap and then i'll give serious thought to these other things, but not until then. >> chris: congressman ryan, we want to thank you so much for joining us today and we will track whether this time there is really a grand bargain. thanks, sir. >> thanks, chris. >> chris: up next, former florida governor jeb bush talks about immigration reform and his political future. ♪ 5-2550 investors want. tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 like no atm fees, worldwide. tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 and no nuisance fees. tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 plus deposit checks with mobile deposit. tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 and manage your cash and investments tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 with schwab's mobile app. tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 no wonder schwab bank has grown to over 70 billion in assets. tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 so if you're looking for a bank that's in your corner, tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 not just on the corner... tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 call, click or visit to start banking with schwab bank today. tdd#: 1-800-345-2550

watch this -- alakazam! ♪ [ male announcer ] staples has always made getting office supplies easy. ♪ another laptop? don't ask. disappear! abracadabra! alakazam! [ male announcer ] and now we're making it easier to get everything for your business. and for my greatest trick! enough! [ male announcer ] because whatever you need, we'll have it or find it, and get it to you fast. staples. that was easy. you name it...i've hooked it. but there's one... one that's always eluded me. thought i had it in the blizzard of '93. ha! never even came close. sometimes, i actually think it's mocking me. [ engine revs ] what?! quattro!!!!! ♪

quattro!!!!! michael, tell us why you used to book this fabulous hotel? well you can see if the hotel is pet friendly before you book it, and i got a great deal without bidding. and where's your furry friend? oh, i don't have a cat. now you can save up to 50% during priceline's spring hotel sale use promo code spring for additional savings on all express deals, including pet friendly hotels. express deals. priceline savings without the bidding.

>> chris: jeb bush hasn't decided yet but for the first time is keeping the door open to a possible run for president in 2016. this week the former florida governor returned to the spotlight, with a new book, immigration wars. in which he lays out his plan for comprehensive reform. bush's comments have stirred considerable controversy, and when we talked with him friday, he asked about that. >> chris: governor, in your new book, you lay out a couple of paths to the 11 million illegal immigrants who are now in the country. you say if they want permanent legal resident status they should pay a fine for breaking the law, pay taxes, learn english, and commit no crimes. but, to become a citizen, you write, they must return home, and apply through the normal immigration process. question, governor: what is the difference between

that and what mitt romney was proposing last year, self-deportation, which you say in your book, made it almost impossible for him to get any hispanic votes? >> well, the difference is that we are suggesting that there be a path to legalization. that people that are here come out from the shadows, that is a far cry from telling people they have to go back to their home country and the other thing i would say is that our proposal also says for children of illegal immigrants, those who can't come here illegally that were children, they should have a path to citizenship on a far faster basis, the so-called dream act kids. >> chris: but in terms of the path to citizenship, that is self-deportation, correct? >> no, it is not self-deportation, people can stay here. 60% of the people that were granted a process of legalization and citizenship in 1987 did not apply for citizenship. they stayed, as legal residents

of the country. and so it is much different than to say, you know, you have no ability to be able to have a a chance to come out from the shadows. now, i also think a path to citizenship, so long as the ability of someone to come legally, is easier, and less costly than coming illegally, that the path to citizenship is appropriate and i applaud the work of the senators and others in the congress, that are working to try to craft a consensus and a compromise on the issue. >> chris: well, i want to pick up on that, but you have taken heat from those senators, who say that your plan is more restrictive than what the so-called bipartisan group of 8, gang of 8, has come up with, when it comes to the path to citizenship. they say they would allow it as soon as the border becomes secure and lindsey graham, who was one of the members of the gang of 8, said this: this proposal, your plan, caught me off guard, and it undercuts

what we are trying to do. have you made it easier for conservatives to oppose immigration reform? >> no, not at all. in fact, i think -- i have talked to senator graham, and, he said that we're in sync on this. that, based on the comprehensive nature of our proposal, the book that we wrote, the objectives are the same and i admire his work and i think that if -- with some continued efforts on this, and with the house, also having a version of immigration reform, it could be, chris, there is a chance that something old-fashioned happens, which is, that there is a conference committee and that there is a forged consensus on immigration reform which would be spectacular for our country. and i don't think our book undermines that at all. >> chris: let me pick up on that, one more time, though. what you are saying is, to get to be a citizen you have to go back to your home country and apply through the normal processes. and what the senators are saying, is, no, you can stay in

this country and once the borders are deemed to be secure, that then you can become a citizen without self-deportation. isn't that a difference? >> in -- and the senator is also saying that the path to -- for someone outside of the country, that has patiently been waiting they should have a chance to come legally, before anybody comes a vision, that has come here illegally and that is the foundation of our idea and that is where there is a consensus. there is not much light between what we are suggesting in the book and what is being worked on right now, which is very encouraging. >> chris: you have also taken some heat during this past week for your suggestion that you might be willing to accept more revenue, higher taxes, as part of a grand bargain, if you also got serious spending cuts, and you also gotten entitlement reform. and, an anti-tax advocate, grover norquist said: people are looking for someone

who is tough and you are saying, i'll fold. >> what i think we ought to be focused on in washington, is to build consensus on the things where there is an agreement. maybe that would be on creating high growth, for example, sustained economic growth and, chris more revenue than any tax increase but i don't think that you should -- when you are asked a question about whether or not, you know, you are for or against something, automatically say no. heck, no. we have to find in a divided country ways to compromise, i'm sitting at the reagan library, a great conservative, a man beloved not by just conservatives but all americans, did exactly that, he forged consensus and didn't violate his precipitates mprinciples -- and i'm encouraged that a lot of people in washington, understand that, and are willing to try to find common ground, immigration

is a great example of that. >> chris: let's talk about the situation in washington. because you have been tough on president obama, in your book, you repeatedly criticized him for the fact that, as you say he broke his campaign promise to enact comprehensive reform in the first year, and, in an interview this week you said leaders lead, they don't create a poisonous atmosphere. simple question: what do you think of barack obama as president? >> well, i think he's been -- he's a very effective campaigner and is continuing to campaign. i'll tell you went thing, though, i have been encouraged that a couple of days ago, three or four days ago, he had dinner with 12 republican senators, i believe and had lunch with paul ryan. now, whether that is a gimmick or sincere, i hope it is sincere, because, if he does pivot towards trying to reconcile and find common ground and share in the credit and not have everything be about political victories, it is possible that we could begin to solve some of these problems and my hope and prayer is that i

have been wrong, and that he changing direction. i hope that is the case. >> chris: early on, in the 2008-2012 cycle you took yourself out of the possibility of running for president. but, this time, your answer is, i'm not saying yes, it is just that i'm not saying no. so, my question is, are you leaving the door open, because it will get you more attention for your views which i have to say is working wonderfully well, or is it that... or is it that you are really in a different place about running for president, sir? >> you know, it is -- we just had an election and it occurred three months ago and it seems like you'd make decisions like that closer to the election, than three months after the last one. and so, it is a sincere thought that maybe it is better to make decisions, in the proper context, at the proper time. i love the fact that, in washington world, all logic is just based on illogical things,

that i would create all of this controversy so people would buy the book. that is fantastic. you are not the first person that hinted at that. >> chris: well, it has worked. let me ask you a couple of more questions, about the illogic of whether you would run in 2016. obviously you are proud of your family, your father, and their accomplishments but would it be a political burden? i think it is fair to say when your brother left the presidency, he was somewhat unpopular and we looked around the most recent polls and they show that 46% view you favorably an 49%, unfavorably. do you think there is bush baggage? do you think it would be a problem. >> no, i don't think there is any bush baggage at all, i love my brother and i'm proud of his accomplishments and i love my dad and i'm proud to be a bush and if i run for president it is not because of something in my dna that compels me to do it. it would be the right thing to do for my family, that the

conditions are right and i have something to offer, and if i don't run i have a blessed life. i can continue to do what i am doing now, work on education reform, and advocate the policies that i believe in and also, a little private life and that decision will happen as i said later on. >> chris: and, one last question, in the regard: terry jeffrey, a conservative columnist, said if you were to run, that you would not be the conservative candidate, you would be the establishment candidate. do you plead that you would be the establishment candidate? >> you know what? i don't even think about it. i'm here at the reagan library and i'm proud to be here. and i just -- the idea that you have to put everybody in these categories and -- that is washington word. out here there are people really concerned about the future of our country, and the structural problems we have, and they are looking for solutions. and, i'm going to be part of offering those solutions, whether i'm a candidate or not. >> chris: well, let me say, sir, that whether you come as a

candidate or whether as one of the most thoughtful and provocative voices in the republican party, you are always welcome here, we thank you for talking with us and good luck to you and good luck with the book. >> thanks, chris. >> chris: up next, lunch, dinner and plenty of face time with republicans. we'll ask our sunday group what is behind the president's new charm offensive. ♪ the world needs more energy. where's it going to come from? ♪ that's why right here, in australia, chevron is building one of the biggest natural gas projects in the world. enough power for a city the size of singapore for 50 years. what's it going to do to the planet? natural gas is the cleanest conventional fuel there is. we've got to be smart about this. it's a smart way to go. ♪ [ male announcer ] how could switchgrass in argentina, change engineering in dubai, aluminum production in south africa,

and the aerospace industry in the u.s.? at t. rowe price, we understand the connections of a complex, global economy. it's just one reason over 75% of our mutual funds beat their 10-year lipper average. t. rowe price. invest with confidence. request a prospectus or summary prospectus with investment information, risks, fees and expenses to read and consider carefully before investing.

growing up, we didn't have u-verse. we couldn't record four shows at the same time. in my day, you were lucky if you could record two shows. and if mom was recording her dumb show and dad was recording his dumb show then, by george, that's all we watched. and we liked it! today's kids got it so good. [ male announcer ] get u-verse tv for just $19 a month for 1 year when you bundle tv and internet. rethink possible.

when you bundle tv and internet. ♪ >> president barack obama: you deserve better than the same political gridlock and refusal

to compromise that is too often passed for serious debate over the last few years. that is why i have been reaching out, to republicans and democrats, to see if we can untangle some of the gridlock. >> chris: president barack obama explaining his recent outreach to congressional republicans on the budget and it is time for our sunday group. kimberley strassel of the "wall street journal." julie pace, who covers the white house, for the associated press. radio talk show host, laura ingraham and fox news political analyst, juan williams. kim, what do you make of the president's so-called charm offensive, the sudden interest in spending quality time with republicans, sincere or political theatre? >> that is what is interesting about what paul ryan said. is it sincere? and one of the more interesting things we learned was the "washington post" story that said in fact the president's ambition over the next ten years is not to pass anything or govern, it is to highlight republicans as a problem, and, paint them as the issue, beat

them in the 2014 election so he has the house and the senate and the white house as he did in his first term and can pass whatever he wants again and the charm offensive, one of the problems is they got caught, in the sequester, they went out and he looked obviously, to be campaigning and got -- asked a lot of question why he was on the road rather than trying to solve the problem and he can't be obvious about this strategy, if it is indeed the strategy they are pursuing. >> chris: you know, julie, the white house says that the president came to the conclusion that he couldn't deal with republican leaders and if -- first of all couldn't make a deal with them, and secondly,f he did, couldn't sell it to the members and decided to go directly to the rank-and-file. is that what is find this? it really is in the course of a week, if you look at his media address, weekend address, last saturday, he was blasting republicans, and this one about outreach is a dramatic shift. >> definitely a shift. and i think there is truth to the fact that the white house decided that talking just to

boehner and talking just to mcconnell, obviously, wasn't getting anybody any closer to a deal and they have been strategic in choosing the republicans, particularly on the senate side obama will talk to and they looked for people who showed some indication that they may be willing to discuss revenue increases, as part of a bigger deal, kelly ayotte said that, and lindsay graham said that and the white house is hoping to generate momentum, at least a conversation among the rank-and-file republicans. but, the reality is, at a certain point, he's going to need the republican leadership and can't completely avoid having conversations with them. >> chris: whatever the president's motivation, laura, the real question is, is there any basis for a deal here? is there a bridge that can be crossed on this? i was struck, listening to paul ryan, and he has obamacare being repealed and still wants the medicare structural reform, premier supports, as he called it, the vouchers and i know the white house when they talk about tax reform as opposed to ryan,

talks about keeping the rates up, not lowering rates, just e doing away with the loop hose, and another tax increase. is there a deal there. >> there is a chasm and i think the president picked lindsey graham to be the one to put the dinner together for a reason. lindsey graham said, i think 7 days ago, he's open to new revenues which conservatives weren't really surprised to hear lindsey graham say that. we'll talk about rand paul but he's a thorn in the side about rand paul and the president -- this is what happened, the president saw tom brokaw, bill keller of the washington times and washington post and these liberal institutions and people, a little to the left saying, it looks like a campaign. >> chris: even the peanut gallery. >> this is a campaign here, you just got elected, a second term now and it is time to get something done and when people on the left, slightly on the left are saying that, the president said, actually, i have to make it looks like, charm offensive, whatever you want to call it. breaking bread but the fact he has to go around leadership, even the second term, why do you

have to go around leadership? it is what it is. that is the world as it exists and i know he says he doesn't want to be dictator. he's not and can't wave a wand and get everything done, and the fact is you have to deal with the players on the chess board. boehner and mcconnell aed the leadership and, it is fun to play in the sandbox with someone a little more ideologically on your same plane, like lindsay graham. >> chris: juan, two questions, one the sincerity of what he's doing as opposed to the optics of it, to use a favorite phrase in washington and two, is there a deal to be made? because it sure doesn't sound like night speaking to laura's point, though, the president has to have someone to work with and remember, bra boehner has not b able to prove he can bring his guys, his troops along and, fears loss of leadership if he makes a deal conservatives don't like with president obama and mcconnell's case he's worried about re-election and, the tea

party component back in kentucky and to answer your question, directly, yes, there is a basis for the deal. the deal the president offered to speaker boehner back in december, the so-called grand bargain deal, basically put together the tax cuts in terms of the loop -- i'm sorry. raising taxes, through loop hose and deduction and then you go at things like savings with medicare and social security, and cpi and i think it was a mix of 650 -- $900 billion in cuts and $680 in new taxes and that is what the president put out at the dinner, and what he's trying to achieve and the question is can we do it and will boehner and mcconnell agree to a deal when it might have negative consequences with them with the tea party -- >> the "wall street journal" had a searing editorial about the nature of the obama plan and basically said it is a... >> the real problem is, it is

not a chasm of ideas, it is a process question and the problem with the white house, they are living in november and think that, maybe they can gin up momentum for everyone to come together and sit down and target the numbers juan is talking about and that will not happen anymore. you hear the republicans talking about regular order and what that means is, you go first, white house and the senate democrats, juan says, well, speaker boehner hasn't brought along his guys. the president has never actually got his guys on the record, on the flood, with a bill that says they'll accept entitlement reform and we don't know if there are a lot of senate democrats that would vote for the president's tax hikes. >> chris: we know patty murray, the head of the senate budget committee will come out this week with a plan, and for the first time in four years they'll have a plan -- >> first time in four years. >> and we'll see what is in there and what can pass, that's the point the republicans are making, really, we're no longer going to get in a bam rookck ro, cigar filled and try and bring

everyone along, show us what you've got and maybe well meet in conference and see what comes out of that. >> chris: one thing i want to get out of you. do wte house officials think they lost the pr battle over the sequester and a number of predictions over what would happen turned out to be exaggerated or false and the decision to close the white house tourists for schoolkids coming on spring break, a lot of blow back on that. >> the white house certainly doesn't say publicly they lost the pr war on this but i think we have to wait a couple of weeks, make a month or two to see what the impact of the sequester will be, and sure they really opened themselves up to criticism, by putting out very specific impacts of the sequester. fact sheets on every state and we'll be able to go back and see if those impacts actually happened and if they didn't they'll have a bit of a time explaining why they overhyped the impact of that. >> quickly, let me say the president's numbers, went down, i think. i think people thought he should be doing a better job of trying

to lead the country and they are worried that he lacked that leadership, posture, and, it seemed as if he was, you know, the republican argument was trying to im fact make the sequester look more painful in order to make the political point. i don't think that -- >> if president bush shut down the white house, to little kids, all the little kids would be interviewed... >> chris: and, the social media have spent a couple of peeks with t-- weeks with the president. coming up, the use of drones and, the decision to try an accused terrorist in the heart of new york city. we've worked hard to keep it. bp has paid over twenty-three billion dollars to help people and businesses who were affected, and to cover cleanup costs. today, the beaches and gulf are open for everyone to enjoy -- and many areas are reporting their best tourism seasons in years. we've shared what we've learned with governments and across

the industry so we can all produce energy more safely. i want you to know, there's another commitment bp takes just as seriously: our commitment to america. bp supports nearly two-hundred-fifty thousand jobs in communities across the country. we hired three thousand people just last year. bp invests more in america than in any other country. in fact, over the last five years, no other energy company has invested more in the us than bp. we're working to fuel america for generations to come. today, our commitment to the gulf, and to america, has never been stronger.

>> chris: check out fox news sunday.com for behind-the-scenes features, panel-plus, and a special monday preview of the e week ahead. you can find it at foxnewssunday.com and be sure and let us know what you think. stay tuned, for more from our panel. ♪

♪ >> to allow... in secret, you never get... the propellers on

the drones as it filies overhea in the seconds before you are killed. that what we really want from our government. >> chris: rand paul took to the senate floor for a 13 hour filibuster because of the possibility, the president might order a drone strike on a u.s. citizen. what do you think of rand paul's criticism of the obama drone policy and what did you think about the split, with the lib attorne libertarians, and, people like john mccain who said the commander-in-chief needs the authority to use force? >> john mccain and lindsay graham and the "wall street journal" editorial board, extremely dismissive of rand paul and the "wall street journal" said, calm down and, you have to do more than fire up impressionable libertarians in they're college dorm and i thought when was the last time a

republican managed to capture the imagination of young people, some people on the left, mitch mcconnell, john thune, jon cornyn, marco rubio, there was a wide range of republicans, and, people on the left, who said, you know something? i think the attorney general should be able to answer a simple question, with an unequivocal yes or no. he couldn't do that. and, rand paul served an enormously important function during the filibuster, he wasn't waving his hands and ranting and raving, contrary to what the journal said. he said, we have three branches of government and it is our solemn duty to put a check on what the executive decides to do and want to slap, enemy combatant on an individual and it gives the president unilateral and secret authority to order an assassination by drone or any other strike. that is something that is quite shocking to a lot of people and i think rand paul, not only sent a message to the country, but, solidified himself in a 2016 run

for the presidency, that will shake up this party, as it deserves to be shaken up. >> chris: you know, juan, his filibuster, he said it was controversial among republicans and democrats, but raiseses a question, 12 years into the war on terror with al qaeda central diminished and, all the affiliates spreading across north africa, especially, do we need new rules of the road, when the president can use drones or other projections of u.s. proow. >> absolutely and, everybody, everybody agrees, what you need is judicial and potential review, of the kill list and who is on it. you don't want a president exercising his authority in a vacuum, as laura called it unilaterally. but in response to senator paul, it was grandstanding, an internet sensation but the fact is, there are no u.s. citizens,

who have ever been targeted or killed by a drone on u.s. soil and secondly, the constitution gives the president authority to go after u.s. citizens if that u.s. citizen is somehow involved in colluding with an enemy of the united states. i mean, go back to the civil war, you have that right. >> no, you do not -- >> it is -- >> i love the fact we have the hawk, juan williams and the dove, laura ingraham. >> not the dove, the constitutionalist. >> chris: let me pick up with julie. how does the white house feel about rand paul's filibuster? >> i don't think they took it incredibly seriously. at the beginning. i think they felt like he already had the answers to the questions that he was asking. but, i actually feel like what he did was, he got the attorney general to actually provide an answer that was more specific than what eric holder said the die before in his testimony on the hill. you know, as we go through the

process of trying to figure out what exactly the drone policy is, and some of the details start to come out the answers we get actually raise more questions. and, i think it was important both for the white house, and for the public in general, to get the answer, to brand paul's final question which was, not just would the president use a weaponized drone against an american on american soil and, does he that have the authority and the answer was no. >> chris: no. no. no, i don't think that is what he said -- if he's not in combat. >> again all the answers raise more question but that was an important step for the administration to take. >> chris: all right, i want to -- do you want to defend your -- >> i think it is really important, republicans and conservatives, and, need not to get swept up in what was happening here this week, there's a lot of enthusiasm and a lot of confusion and people were animated about the fact rand paul talked about the constitution, okay? and it is something a lot of conservatives felt the obama administration has not given

enough deference to and i'm not sure they necessarily were able to separate their thoughts from the policy here, which is, very clear as juan said, going back, through the years, if you are an enemy combatant under the laws of wear the president has the ability not just targeting you, but taking you and detaining you and interrogating you and that has been the case going back through history and the constitution absolutely allows for that. and, i do think we get into a worrisome thing if we don't actually -- we take away some of those other issues if we start making false choices on this one particular issue... >> chris: why panel plus was invented. >> oh, come on... >> chris: we have something else to talk about, gee, whiz! and we also learned this week the u.s. had arrested usama bin laden's son-in-law, you can see him there, just to the left, suleiman abu ghaith and charged him in a criminal court in new york city, blocks from ground zero, with conspiring to kill americans and republican senator

kelly ayotte, not happy with the decision. watch: >> if this man, right next to usama bin laden, involved in the attacks on our country on 9/11, don't you think it would be important that we not tell him he has the right to remain silent? >> chris: laura, the president clearly making a point, by not sending him to a military tribunal at guantanamo bay. >> yes, it is interesting, because of course we have the switch from the previous controversy in new york where chuck schumer and john mccain and everybody said, no, no, ksm cannot be tried in a federal court and it is confusing, regardless of your position on this, why pull back the ksm trial, khalid sheikh mohammed from federal court and abu ghaith, he gets to be tried here. it is muddled, i'm not -- >> you certainly agree that ksm is a much bigger figure and a higher target. >> bigger target... the baghdad

bob of al qaeda, right? he was kind of the spokesman, but, nevertheless, i see john mccain's point. it seems -- not insulting but inconvenient for people of new york to have the trial. we tried the blind sheikh and successfully in new york. and, and mccarthy oversaw the prosecution and did a terrific job in that trial. i think we're going to do a great job in this trial and i'm not as work up as some conservatives are about this. i think he's going to go away for the rest of his life and, whether he is in guantanamo bay -- just drone... >> chris: laura, having a complete switch of roles here? >> really, do you like my hair today? no. the u.s. has an excellent record of -- in fact convicting these terrorists. and, i guess the question is, you know, he was talking for a while and went quiet, and, would we get more out of im -- >> that is the issue, interrogation, he has been given the right to remain silent and

is guaranteed a right to a speedy trial and we don't have the time we would have in guantanamo bay to extract information from him, the way we -- >> and how we got him, he was released by iran and -- >> i'm confused, as to what everybody is going to say, thank you, panel, see you next weak. interesting. don't forget to check out panel plus where our group picks up with a discussion on our web site, which will be on drones, foxnu foxnewssunday.com, and follow us on twitter, @foxnewssunday. and up next, what you thought about fox news's interview with mitt romney and ann romney.